I can't for the life of me understand if Gaffney thought he is speaking to an audience or an empty theater. Though Glenn made fine points, Frank Gaffney should have been escorted out of the stage two minutes after he opened the mouth.

Can they find one sane person on the right to debate this war?

It is sad that Glann and Schwarz have to do the dirty work to pointing out the facts and whats real. Why have paid officials and agencies at all?

I think it's also important to point out that, when people like Gaffney are asked for evidence for their claims that dissent emboldens the enemy, all they can offer is a theory that increased dissent in the U.S. is correlated with increased resistance and violence in Iraq. It's a simple and attractive theory, to be sure, but it's nothing more than pure speculation, supported by nothing resembling actual evidence. In fact, there are plenty of evidence-based reasons for why the insurgence has escalated, based on the facts on the ground and the mismanagement of the war as it's been fought, but such trivial matters are hardly important enough to be considered by Gaffney and the rest of the neocons. It's far more vital to focus on the vague possibility that Sunni and Shiite militants are hanging on every word of American politicians and looking for signs of a lack of intestinal fortitude. Somehow, that's all the evidence they need to justify the un-American silencing of their political opponents.

Glenn -

As of today Gaffney's column. including the false quote is still up on Townhall.com -

"Progressives... brought us 9/11...."

"I'm certain Glenn and his followers would laughed[sic] at any warning that Al queda[sic] was going to fly planes into the WTC just like they laugh at Iran now."

A few points. 9/11 occurred under Bush's watch, not Clinton's. The reason it happened during Bush's watch is because Clinton KEPT it from happening, and it was the Bush administration that did all the ignoring and laughing. It is very well documented that Bush and his team did not see bin Laden as a serious threat before 9/11, to the point of accusing Clinton of being "obsessed" with bin Laden. When Clinton tried to go after bin Laden, Republicans accused him of "wagging the dog" which created enough public and political pressure that he had to back off. This is all well documented fact. The sort of thing joe has NEVER provided to back up any of his "points" when posting here at Salon. Now THAT is sad...

Lastly, give us ONE example of a credible liberal who's "laughing" at Iran. Or even "ignoring" or "dismissing" the threat that Iran poses. Or a case where a liberal advocates any of the things you accuse them of. You can't. Once again, you are making shit up and accusing us of saying things we have never said. For the 1,000th time, you’re arguing with straw men to make your point.

I listened to the debate with neocon warmonger Frank Gaffney. I applaud Glenn Greenwald's effectiveness in swatting aside all of Gaffney's truely mindboggling claims and exposing his cowardice in stating what was meant by his "string-em-up" editorial.

Allthough Mr Greenwald (and to a certain extent, Mr Colmes), made several vary good points, there is one thing I wish someone would have asked Gaffney. In an attempt to distance himself from his own words, he repeatedly asserted that "[I am not saying we should be hanging Levin] All I am saying is debate has consequences in a time of war and those that engage in such conduct should be held accountable".

I would like to know what Mr Gaffney things those "consequences" should be. Hanging? Firing squad? Beheading?

Joe: I'm certain Glenn and his followers would laughed at any warning that Al queda was going to fly planes into the WTC

No, actually it was Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Condi who did that. Remember Osama Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.? Of course you don't.

Where do you start with someone whose position is so fundamentally dishonest as Gaffney’s. After back peddling about his hanging language, his fallback position is that (Carl Levin’s) words and congressional debate have consequences and people should be held accountable for the consequences. His claim that there is a causal relationship between the intensification of congressional debate and the intensification of the insurgency is true only in the reverse. The insurgency is causing the debate, not the other way around. But in any case Gaffney offers no evidence to support his theory of correlation. He just assumes it, and on the basis of a highly implausible, unsupported assumption he wants to hang people. And then he talks about accountability for words? What about his words that are so damaging to healthy political discourse and to the core values of democracy

brought us 9/11. The only reason it wasn't hundreds of thousands dead was because they couldn't get bombs with that much power.

I'm certain Glenn and his followers would laughed at any warning that Al queda was going to fly planes into the WTC just like they laugh at Iran now.

Sad.

Nice job, Glenn! Gaffney follows a conservative pundit tradition - he disowns his own thesis. He makes outrageous claims, then deliberately misrepresents them when in a more moderate, fair forum. He knows conservative "red meat," so often made of violent fantasies, doesn't play as well with the general public. Let's not pretend. Gaffney is a fascist. He should be called on it every time he says anything like this. If he knew much about Lincoln, he would have known the quotation didn't ring true. But veracity is irrelevant for these hacks. The only point is gathering and firing ammo. Good lord, did Gaffney read the Duelfer report? He's still peddling that WMD BS? I also appreciate Gaffney trying to characterize Greenwald as trying to silence him - when Gaffney's advocated hanging anyone who disagrees with his position! Gaffney of course knows that calling him on his stupidity and hackery is not censorship. Gaffney is consistent in only two aspects - lying, and trying to silence critics.